Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
Technicolor had been cutting corners ever since the 1970s, and after they ditched dye-transfer (1974 in the US, 1977 in the UK) they were just another lab as far as I was concerned. I'm not a fan of the grungy look, but it's been around since the late 1960s yet and a lot of young filmmakers don't know and don't care what films looked like before then. Some of them think the banding and excessive grain of trying to lighten underexposed shots looks cool. While I mainly use digital, I prefer the old techniques of shooting and I use the look of pre-1970s films and photographers for inspiration in my film and photography work.
A 35mm still photo frame is twice the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, so if 4k can capture a movie frame it would take 8k to hold all the info on a still photo frame. And that's a TIFF file of over 100 MB.
Quote:
Technicolor had been cutting corners ever since the 1970s, and after they ditched dye-transfer (1974 in the US, 1977 in the UK) they were just another lab as far as I was concerned. I'm not a fan of the grungy look, but it's been around since the late 1960s yet and a lot of young filmmakers don't know and don't care what films looked like before then. Some of them think the banding and excessive grain of trying to lighten underexposed shots looks cool. While I mainly use digital, I prefer the old techniques of shooting and I use the look of pre-1970s films and photographers for inspiration in my film and photography work.
A 35mm still photo frame is twice the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, so if 4k can capture a movie frame it would take 8k to hold all the info on a still photo frame. And that's a TIFF file of over 100 MB.
This k-thing still seems to confound.
Regardless of the number of perforations being scanned, a 4k image is still a 4k image -- perf to perf. Standard 35/4 and VistaVision 35/8 are both 4k. The difference would be in megapixels.
RAH
Technicolor had been cutting corners ever since the 1970s, and after they ditched dye-transfer (1974 in the US, 1977 in the UK) they were just another lab as far as I was concerned. I'm not a fan of the grungy look, but it's been around since the late 1960s yet and a lot of young filmmakers don't know and don't care what films looked like before then. Some of them think the banding and excessive grain of trying to lighten underexposed shots looks cool. While I mainly use digital, I prefer the old techniques of shooting and I use the look of pre-1970s films and photographers for inspiration in my film and photography work.
A 35mm still photo frame is twice the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, so if 4k can capture a movie frame it would take 8k to hold all the info on a still photo frame. And that's a TIFF file of over 100 MB.
How much detail is even visible to the human eye anyway?
Quote:
This k-thing still seems to confound.
Regardless of the number of perforations being scanned, a 4k image is still a 4k image -- perf to perf. Standard 35/4 and VistaVision 35/8 are both 4k. The difference would be in megapixels.
RAH
So how many megapixels would a Standard 35/4 frame have versus a VistaVision 35/8 frame?
Deleted
On the exhibition front I see that every day. And I agree that there will be another era of theatre closings. It will begin in about three years and those will be the theatres that could not afford to go digital. Then the regional companies will start to thin out due to the higher operational cost of digital. Right now there is on going fighting concerning the cost of the delivery of the content.
I recently saw Winnie the Pooh (delightful film, BTW; the best Pooh project from Disney since the three original featurettes and it breaks my heart that it's doing so poorly at the box office) in a DLP screening. The color and sharpness were great and really brought out the color and storybook-like quality of the hand-drawn animation (appropriately reminiscent of 1960s and 1970s Disney), but the stair-stepping marred it for me, albeit not to the point of unwatchability. A high-quality 35mm print, which the high-speed, one-light, exposed-at-2000-frames-per-minute prints the majority of people see are NOT, would not have this problem. Switching to digital will not break the bad habits of exhibition that have become the norm over the years, but will just trade some problems for others.
The attempts to bring visual quality back to 35mm presentation post-1970s were all in vain. The revival of Technicolor's dye-transfer process was seldom used, and very few films during that period (1997-2001) were shot in a way that could have taken full advantage of it; we do not need to remind ourselves of the disastrous quality of the 1998 Gone with the Wind reissue. Print stock kept improving in quality but was never used to its fullest advantage.
I recently saw Winnie the Pooh (delightful film, BTW; the best Pooh project from Disney since the three original featurettes and it breaks my heart that it's doing so poorly at the box office) in a DLP screening.
I recently saw Winnie the Pooh (delightful film, BTW; the best Pooh project from Disney since the three original featurettes and it breaks my heart that it's doing so poorly at the box office) in a DLP screening. The color and sharpness were great and really brought out the color and storybook-like quality of the hand-drawn animation (appropriately reminiscent of 1960s and 1970s Disney), but the stair-stepping marred it for me, albeit not to the point of unwatchability. A high-quality 35mm print, which the high-speed, one-light, exposed-at-2000-frames-per-minute prints the majority of people see are NOT, would not have this problem. Switching to digital will not break the bad habits of exhibition that have become the norm over the years, but will just trade some problems for others.
I agree that Winnie the Pooh looked great. But I'll be watching (and showing my grandkids...whenever I get any!) the originals. These new stories broke no new ground and were just unsuccessful attempts to recreate the enchantment of the originals. The story content has got to match the artistry and this was a "fail." Loved Cleese and Deschanel and some of the voice work...but, to me, it was nothing more than an obvious copycat attempt. It got it ALL right...except for the stories and songs.
The inevitable DVD/Blu-Ray release may do better, and last I checked it had a 90% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Throughout the history of movies, several films for children or adults were far more successful after their theatrical releases (which were DTV caliber at best). At one point in the 1990s the Winnie the Pooh characters were selling more merchandise than Mickey Mouse. As Travis pointed out, anything Pooh is a cash cow on video.
Fox Intl To Stop 35mm Print Distribution In Hong Kong-Macau: Digital Only After Jan. 1
Twentieth Century Fox International will cease the distribution of 35mm film prints to theaters in Hong Kong and Macau effective January 1st, 2012. After that date all Fox feature film content in cinemas will be provided exclusively through DCI-compliant digital media formats. Through December 31, 2011 Fox will provide its films in both 35mm print and DCI-compliant digital formats to the region.
“We anticipate that by the end of 2011, exhibitors in Hong Kong and Macau will have converted more than 95% of their cinema screens to DCI-compliant digital cinema projection technology,” Sunder Kimatrai, SVP and Asia-Pacific Regional Managing Director for Twentieth Century Fox International said in a statement issued Monday. “As a logical result of the transition to digital cinema, we feel the time is right to phase out the supply of our films in 35mm analogue formats. The entire Asia-Pacific region has been rapidly deploying digital cinema systems and over the next two years we expect to be announcing additional markets where supply of 35mm will be phased out.”
Julian Levin, Executive Vice President Digital Exhibition and Non-Theatrical Sales added, “Fox thanks Hong Kong and Macau exhibitors and key digital cinema integrators for their continued efforts and investments to convert cinema screens to digital projection technology. Fox has entered numerous digital cinema deployment agreements in Hong Kong/Macau and throughout the Asia-Pacific region, and we will continue to support DCI-compliant digital cinema conversion efforts in all major markets. The future of the cinema business is in digital technology, particularly as a basis for providing to consumers the extra value of 3D cinema. We encourage exhibitors in all countries to sign with their local integrator or to speak with Fox directly about their digital cinema conversion plans.”
Twentieth Century Fox International is a unit of Fox Filmed Entertainment, a segment of News Corporation.
